ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: MOVED: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 17:05:17 -0400
Message-id: <cda1a7d24a89327917d2f7732630b8f9.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Fri, March 15, 2013 15:46, Simon Spero wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Barkmeyer, Edward J <
> edward.barkmeyer@xxxxxxxx> wrote:    (01)

>> NAICS is a taxonomy.  It only defines classes of industrial activity.
>>  Conceptually, the NAICS classifications form a hierarchy under
>> 'subclassOf'.  In the view of the NAICS, the instances of the
>> classifications are 'industrial activities'.    (02)

That depends upon how "Economic Sector", "Industry Group", and
"Industry" are defined.  If their instances are types of industrial activity,
then it is (mostly) a taxonomy of such classes.  If, on the other hand,
they are groups of industrial organizations, then the nodes of the
taxonomy are individual groups, and the relation between levels of
the hierarchy is *subgroup*, not *subclass*.    (03)

The US Census document
http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/history/docs/issue_paper_1.pdf says
that the SIC (prior acronym) codes "group
or aggregate producing units into industries".    (04)

Cyc defines #$EconomicSector-Localized and #$Industry as subclasses
of (#$GroupFn #$Business).    (05)

A problem of using a tremendously general relation such as "partOf"
is that there are so many different partonomic relations, the meaning
of its usage is unclear.  Subrelations of "partOf" would include both
"subGroup" and "subClass".    (06)

> This is not strictly correct.  The NAICS classifications at different
> levels refer to different types of things, and the relationship between
> sub-ordinate and super-ordinate terms are not consistently sub/supertype.    (07)

If the classifications are not classes, the inter-term relation is never
sub/supertype.    (08)

>From the census bureau
> FAQ<http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/faqs/faqs.html#q5>,
> 5.  [reference numbers added]    (09)

> NAICS is a 2- through 6-digit hierarchical classification system, offering
> five levels of detail. Each digit in the code is part of a series of
> progressively narrower categories, and the more digits in the code signify
> greater classification detail. [1] The first two digits designate the
> economic sector, [2] the third digit designates the subsector, [3] the
> fourth digit designates the industry group, [4]  the fifth digit
> designates
> the NAICS industry, and [5] the sixth digit designates the national
> industry. The 5-digit NAICS code is the level at which there is
> comparability in code and definitions for most of the NAICS sectors across
> the three countries participating in NAICS (the United States, Canada, and
> Mexico). The 6-digit level allows for the United States, Canada, and
> Mexico each to have country-specific detail.
> A complete and valid NAICS code contains six digits.    (010)

I note that this does not state whether the coded things (sectors,
industry groups, or industries) are types or (groups of) individuals.
If they are types of business and every business that is an instance
of the higher-digit type is an instance of the aggregating lower digit
type, then the relation is *subtype*.  If they are groups of businesses
instead of types, then the relation is *subgroup*.    (011)

If instances/members of a higher digit thing need not be instances/
members of the aggregating lower digit thing, then the relationships
are not in those cases subtype/subgroup.    (012)

> [1] *The first two digits designate the economic sector*    (013)

> The referent of any two digit code is an |Economic Sector|.    (014)

Which is a class or individual?    (015)

> [2] *the third digit designates the subsector*    (016)

> The referent of any three digit code is an |Economic Subsector|.    (017)

Which is a class or individual?    (018)

> It is possible that |Economic Subsector| and |Economic Sector| are
> subclasses.    (019)

... or subgroups depending upon their meaning.    (020)

> However, the relationship between the two digit code and the three digit
> code  is not a subclass relationship; the relationship is partitive.    (021)

Subclass IS partitive.  So is subGroup.    (022)

> For example,
>    [Code 11] (Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting) is an |Economic
> Sector|
>    [Code 111] (Crop Production) is an |Economic Subsector|
>    [Code 112] (Animal Production and Aquaculture) is an |Economic
> Subsector|    (023)

>   [Code 111] is part of [Code 11]
>   [Code 112] is part of [Code 12]    (024)

Sure.  If [Code 11] is all (Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting)
activity and [Code 111] is all (Crop Production) activity, any instance
of  [Code 111] is an instance of  [Code 11] -- the definition of subclass.    (025)

If [Code 11] is all organizations involved in (Agriculture, Forestry,
Fishing [or] Hunting) activity and [Code 111] is all organizations involved
in (Crop Production) activity, any member of  [Code 111] is a member
of  [Code 11] -- the definition of subgroup.    (026)

> [3]* the fourth digit designates the industry group *    (027)

> The referent of any four digit code is an |Industry group|.    (028)

and thus a class or individual?    (029)

By "is an" you mean "is an instance of".    (030)


> The relationship between |Economic Subsector| and |Industry group| would
> also appear to be partitive.    (031)

Sure.  But that doesn't distinguish between subgroup and subclass.    (032)

> [Code 1111] (Oilseed and Grain Farming) is an |Industry group|.
> [Code 1112] (Vegetable and Melon Farming) is an |Industry group|.    (033)

> [Code 1112] is part of [Code 111].    (034)

... and a subclass or subgroup, depending upon the meaning.    (035)

> [4]  *the fifth digit designates the NAICS industry*    (036)

> There referent of any five digit code is an |Industry|.    (037)

By "is an" you mean "is an instance of".    (038)

> An |Industry| is part of an |Industry group|.    (039)

... and a subclass or subgroup, depending upon the meaning.    (040)

> [Code 11121] (Vegetable and Melon Farming) is an |Industry|.    (041)

> [Code 11121] is part of [Code 1112].    (042)

... and a subclass or subgroup, depending upon the meaning.    (043)

> Note that the labels for 1112 and 11121 are the same    (044)

This suggests using a subclass/subgroup/partOf relationship that
is reflexive.    (045)

>  [5] *the sixth digit designates the national industry.*    (046)

> A six digit code refers to a  |National Industry| - possibly at a finer
> level of sub-division than was agreed on internationally.    (047)

> |National Industry| is a subclass of |Industry|    (048)

... or subgroup, depending upon whether it is a class or group.    (049)

> The relationship between the five and six digit code could be generic.    (050)

By "generic", do you mean "unspecified"?  The examples given here
are all subclass/subgroup depending upon how you define "Industry".    (051)

> [Code 111211] (Potato Farming) is a |National Industry|    (052)

> [Code 111219] (Other Vegetable (except Potato) and Melon Farming) is a
> |National Industry|.    (053)

> [Code 112119] is a sub-class of [Code 11211].    (054)

... or subgroup depending upon whether they refer to a group of
businesses or type of activity.    (055)

Note that whatever model is used the narrower term relation is transitive.
Any organization categorized by [Code 111211] (Potato Farming) is
categorized by [Code 11] (Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting),
whether that categorization means "is involved in this type of activity"
or "is a member of the group of organizations involved in this type of
activity".    (056)

> If the codes are taken to be Terms in a controlled vocabulary, we have
>
> 111219. Other Vegetable (except Potato) and Melon Farming BTG    (057)

This relation should be the same type as the others.    (058)

-- doug foxvog    (059)

> 11121.  Vegetable and Melon Farming BTP
>
> 1112. Vegetable and Melon Farming BTP
>
> 111. Crop Production BTP
>
> 11. Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting.
>
> Using the  BT relation as including BTP and BTG, and as being transitive,
> we can conclude that
>
>  Other Vegetable (except Potato) and Melon Farming  BT Agriculture,
> Forestry, Fishing and Hunting    (060)


<snip>    (061)


_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J    (062)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>